“But the most common and durablesource of factions has been the
various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those
who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in
society.

"In framing a government which is
to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in
this:
you must first enable the government to control
the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”SeeImmanuel Kant and the Philosophy of
Freedom/

Democracy
and a Republicsare
often used interchangeably though they represent two different
political philosophies.

A
Republic
has
"power
controlled by the people."A "Democracy
begins with
Majority Rule."

Founding
father Madison
said
...defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting
to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and
actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest,
adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community".

Socrates counters by arguing that we should not
regard the opinion of the majority, but only the opinions of those
who are wise or knowledgeable.Plato's Crito or audio
Plato's Crito

The Limits of PowerVideo The End of American Exceptionalism,
Bill Moyers sits down with history and international relations expert
and former US Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich who identifies three
major problems facing our democracy: the crises of economy, government
and militarism, and calls for a redefinition of the American way of
life.
The Limits of Power Democracy Now interviews Andrew
Bacevich, a conservative historian who spent twenty-three years serving
in the US Army.

How You Can Kill Al-Qaeda in Three Easy Steps
review from
Boing Boing
I just got done reading Howard Clark's new book "How You Can Kill
Al-Qaeda (in Three Easy Steps). He's an ex-Marine and former Homeland
Security adviser who says the way to win the war on terrorism is to
help empower the mainstream Muslim community, who in recent years has
been overshadowed in the public spotlight by fringe Al-Qaeda
extremists. The whole idea of fighting terrorism with ideas and not
weapons is definitely nothing new, but Clark's populist tone and
foreign policy street cred was a refreshing perspective to have in the
discussion. "Click on the link below in the next 30 minutes and I'll
throw in this egg slicer absolutely free! Here's how to order!" Book's
official site...
One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the
Future of Foreign Policy
In this CSPAN2 book interview,
Allison Stanger talks of her book which looks at the increasing use
of private contractors by the U.S. government and argues that
with proper oversight contractors can be valuable tools for carrying
out our foreign policy. Includes audience Q&A.&

Guns,
Germs, and Steel - the
fates of human societies '... attempts to explain why
Eurasian
civilizations, as a whole, have survived and conquered others, while
attempting to refute the belief that Eurasian
hegemony
is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic
superiority."

Strange Rebels:
1979 and the Birth of the 21st Century.
By Christian Caryl.
Basic; 400 pages
argues that 1979 belongs to the select club of real
turning-points: "years in which one era ended and another was born. 1917
proved to be a bloody dead end and 1848 proved to be, in A.J.P. Taylor’s
phrase, “a turning-point in history when history failed to turn”. But
others, such as 1789 (when France’s
ancient régime collapsed) and 1517 (when Martin Luther
nailed his 95 theses on the door), resound down the ages."
Editors note: Was the liberalism of the 20th century coming to an
end?

Free Trade Doesn't Workby Ian Fletcher, adjunct fellow at the United
States Business and Industry Council, and CPA'
In his effective 267 pages of text, Ian Fletcher dissects and often
demolishes fundamental teachings about the benefits and risks of trade and
replaces them with evidence based updates. He then recommends a
practical alternative based on clear objectives.

When this
bestselling book was first published in 2006, Barack Obama had spent
just two years as a United States Senator, the only African American
in the upper chamber; by the time I read it in the summer of 2008,
he was the presumptive Democratic nominee in the presidential
election and the favorite for the White House. The title comes from
a sermon by Obama's then pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright whom the
politician was forced to repudiate in the course of the Democratic
primary, while the sub-title is "Thoughts on reclaiming the American
dream".

Whereas Obama's first book "Dreams From My Father" was
biographicaland written
almost in the style of a novel, this
later work is essentially a set of nine political essays- over 360 pages covering
Republicans and Democrats, values, the US Constitution, politics,
opportunity, faith, race, the wider world, and family- although there are many personal anecdotes and the style is
remarkably fluent. The overall impression is of a thoughtful, perceptive, measured and caring
politicianwho in American
terms is refreshingly liberal and empathetic. This is a man who life
experiences ensure that he understands poverty in the USA and in the
world and sides with the disposed and the powerless.

He sees government more as part of the solution than the problem,
favors provision of healthcare and abortion rights, backs
affirmative action for minorities and trade union representation for
workers, wants greater investment in education, science and
technology, and energy independence, and believes than America
should be less autocratic abroadand more willing to talk to
opponents as well as allies. But he supports the death
penalty in limited circumstances, understands the cultural meaning
of guns in rural communities, and generally shows respect for the
views of his political opponents. There is little detail to his policiesbut he sets out his principles very clearly and eloquently.
His main theme is "the gap between the
magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics- the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and
trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, and our seeming
inability to build a working consensus to
tackle any big problem".

For a top level
politician, his frankness is astonishing - he admits at different
times in his life to "a chronic restlessness", "self-indulgence and
self-destructiveness", and a "style of communicating that can be
rambling, hesitant and overly verbose", and even acknowledges that
"of all the areas of my life, it is in my capacities as a husband
and father that I entertain the most doubt". What drives him? "My
fierce ambitions might have been fueled by my father - by my
knowledge of his achievements and failures, by my unspoken desire to
somehow earn his love, and by my resentment and anger toward him".

(thankfully no footnotes or end notes). But it
covers a lot of ground: the four years
(2009-2013) that Hillary Clinton spent as Secretary of Stateduring the first term of the Barack Obama presidency. Her
natural abilities, plus a book team of three, ensure that it is
well-written, informative and thoughtful, but there are no significant differences of opinion
with Obamaor criticisms of world leaders because Clinton is keeping her
options open for a run at the presidency in 2016. Will she run? She
simply states" "I haven't decided yet". I hope she does and I hope
she wins. This was my position before reading her memoir and my view
is simply reinforced by reading the book.

When Clinton failed
to win the Democratic primary race against Obama, she famously
declared: “Although we weren’t able to
shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time,
thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it”. When Obama
won the presidential contest, she had no interest in becoming
Vice-President and every intention of returning to the Senate. Then,
when Obama invited her to become Secretary of State, she was
“floored”, turned it down, and took two weeks to be persuaded.

Obama kept his
promise of access and she reckons she was at the White House more
than 700 times during her four years in office. In the book, she
mentions very few differences with the
White House, perhaps the most
important being her wish to arm rebels in the Syrian civil warand Obama's decision not to support this approach. It looks
to have been a relationship that quickly developed mutual trust and
at the end Obama declared that they had gone from "a team of rivals"
to "an unrivalled team". She ended up visiting 112 countries and
travelling nearly one million miles with more than 2,000 hours
(equivalent to 87 full days) in the air. She claims that, over the
years, she had developed the ability to sleep almost anywhere at any
time (me too).

She describes
Secretary of State as being three roles- the country’s chief diplomat,
the president’s principal adviser on
foreignpolicy, and chief executive of a department of 70,000
personnel- and she
characterizes the nation’s foreign policy are comprised of the 3 Ds
– defiance, diplomacy and development. She makes the usual
distinctions in foreign policy between 'hard power' (military forces
in its various forms) and 'soft power' (diplomatic, economic and
cultural influences) and advocates an approach of what she calls
'smart power' - the right combination of different elements of hard
and/or soft power for each particular situation.

After a couple of
introductory chapters, “Hard Choices” does not follow a
chronological approach but instead the bulk of the book (some 450
pages) comprises a series of chapters on
different countriesand
regions around the globe: after a general chapter on Asia, specific
ones on China, Burma, Afghanistan and Pakistan; then chapters on
Europe, Russia, Latin America, and Africa; and, after a general
chapter on the Middle East, dedicated chapters on the 2011 Arab
Spring revolution, Libya, the 2012 death of the US ambassador in
Benghazi, Iran, Syria and Gaza. Only at the end are there a few
thematic chapters on global challenges such as climate change,
energy and human rights. The book is dotted with some fascinating facts and figures on different
countries and issues.

A key feature of the Obama/Clinton partnership was
the so-called "pivot strategy", an effort to re-focus American
attention more towards Asia and so,
in a break from precedent, Clinton's first trip was to Japan,
Indonesia, South Korea and China with a first ever visit by a US
Secretary of State to ASEAN. Understandably she expresses concern
about tensions especially in the South and East China Seas where
China is increasingly flexing its growing military muscle. Another
distinguishing feature of the new administration was an attempt to “reset” relations with Russiaand Clinton even presented a mocked-up reset button to
Russia’s Foreign Secretary Lavrov. However, the button was labeled
‘peregruzka’ (overcharged) rather than ‘perezagruzka’ (reset) and
the effort soon ran into Putin's
belligerence.

For anyone
interested in international affairs or global politics - like me -
this is a really interesting read which takes us through all the major trouble spotsof the world, almost all of which - perhaps most notably the
Arab-Israeliconflict, Iran's nuclear
aspirationsand the assertiveness of Russia- remain active. In
each case, Clinton sets out the historic background to the challenge
and then describes her efforts to improve the situation. Although
inevitably in a memoir, the account is
somewhat self-serving and there is very little in the way of
rethinking, it is a sensible and sensitive review which reflects considerable knowledge, commitment
and passion for social justice.

The only real
expression of a change of view is in relation to a decision before
she even ran for the Democratic nomination: the vote to authorize
military action in Iraq. She writes: "I came to deeply regret giving
President Bush the benefit of the doubt on that vote" and "While
many were never going to look past my 2002 vote no matter what I did
or said, I should have stated my regret sooner and in the plainest,
most direct language possible".

The theme of the
book - captured in the title and alluded to many times - is that all
decisions in international affairs are complicated and difficult
trade-offs of principle and pragmatism. As she puts it: "Keeping
America safe, strong and prosperous presents an endless set of
choices, many of which come with imperfect information and
conflicting imperatives". She refers
to "our classic dilemma" and asks" "Should we do business
with a leader with whom we disagreed on so many things in the name
of advancing core security interests?".

As she explains:
"The question of nations working together on some issues while
clashing on others is part of a classic debate within foreign policy
circles"and "Straight up
transactional diplomacy isn't always pretty, but often it's
necessary".In the
end, she insists: "As you've seen throughout this book, there are
times when we do have to make difficult compromises. Our challenge
is to be clear-eyed about the world as it is while never losing
sight of the world as we want it to become

“Most intellectuals have a self-understanding of themselves as the
conscience of humanity,” said the Middle East scholarNorman
Finkelstein.
“They revel in and admire someone like Vaclav Havel. Chomsky is
contemptuous of Havel. Chomsky embraces theJulien
Bendaview
of the world. There are two sets of principles. They are the
principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and
justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a
diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege
it will always be at the expense of truth and justice. Benda says
that the credo of any true intellectual has to be, as Christ said,
‘my kingdom is not of this world.’ Chomsky exposes the pretenses of
those who claim to be the bearers of truth and justice. He shows
that in fact these intellectuals are the bearers of power and
privilege and all the evil that attends it." Source